Re: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

[Gert Doering gert@localhost]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Most (if not all) larger hosting providers I know are LIRs, so this
> > question really doesn't apply.
> Then we will arrive at "LIRs are global pain to everybody else", and
> nothing has changed.

Which is touching the core of the problem: 

  "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"?

LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate 
for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and 
even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved
shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder
and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* 
have some costs attached".

So in the end, we might want to abandon the "IPv6 PI" approaches, and 
radically change (loosen) the "IPv6 PA" policy.

But *I* am not the one to decide that - I follow the discussions, and try
to extract some sort of workable (for the next few years) compromise 
between the extreme positions, which will then re-enter the discussion.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  92315

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234